Volume 12, Issue 2, 1998

Objective and subjective evidence of success with WinEcon

Heather GageUniversity of Surrey

Introduction

WinEcon, an interactive computer based learning package, was developed
between 1992 and 1995 as part of the Higher Education Funding Councils
Teaching and Learning Technology Programme. It offers 75 hours of material on
introductory micro and macro economics in 25 modules, and was designed to meet
a variety of teaching and learning needs in different settings, (Hobbs and
Judge, 1995; Sloman, 1995)

Evidence is now gathering about the effectiveness of WinEcon as a teaching
and learning resource (Crichton, 1995; Brooksbank et al, 1998; MacDonald and
Shields, 1998; Ping Lim, 1998). This paper contributes to this discussion
through a comparison of the performance of first year economics students at
the University of Surrey who had weekly chalk and talk tutorials
with that of students who had weekly tutorials based on the WinEcon package.
It also documents student views about how helpful they found WinEcon as a
study resource. It uses data for the academic years 1995-6, 1996-7 and 1997-8.

Setting

A pass in A level economics is not a prerequisite for entry to
the two single honours economics degree courses at the University of Surrey
(BSc Economics, BSc Business Economics with Computing). These courses have a
combined entry of about 75 students per annum. The proportion of entrants with
A level economics has fallen steadily from around 80% in the years
1988-93 to 40% in 1997-8. Over the same period, the number of entrants with a
Business Studies background has increased. This substitution is consistent
with national trends in A level teaching. It does, however, have
implications for the teaching of first year economics courses. Instead of
providing extra weekly classes for a small proportion of students who have not
taken A level economics, over one half of the year group is
involved. The completion of the interactive WinEcon package was therefore
welcomed as an additional way in which this group in particular could be
assisted with minimal human resource implications.

First year economics is assessed through two units, a basic micro and
macro principles course, and a course that focuses on various contemporary
issues. The latter includes a coursework component, as well as an examination,
and students are expected to apply the economic theory presented in the
principles course to a range of micro and macro level problems. For the
purpose of this paper, student performance is measured by the average of their
marks in these two units, although in practice students are required to pass
(i.e. achieve 40% or more) in each. Failures in spring examinations (as
reported here) are generally retrieved through summer resits.

WinEcon was used to supplement lectures and tutorials in all the three
years that have been analysed. In 1995-6 and 1997-8, all first year economics
students were given written and verbal instructions about how to access
WinEcon, and reminded at the start of each new topic that they might use both
the software package and the accompanying workbook as an additional and
complementary study medium. During these years students without A
level economics were scheduled for a traditionally taught weekly meeting in
groups of about fifteen, to help them master material covered by A
level economics syllabuses. In 1996-7, however, the weekly classes for
students without A level economics were held in computer
laboratories and were specifically organised around the WinEcon package,
whilst students with A level economics were advised (as in the other years)
that the package was available in computer rooms campus-wide for them to use
as they chose. The dedicated WinEcon classes could not be offered in 1997-8
because of uncertainties about the availability of computer rooms for teaching
during the construction of a new university computing centre. However, the
changes in the way that the non-A level economics group was taught
provides an opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of WinEcon in this
capacity.

Comparative performance

The entry qualifications and performance in first year economics courses
of the three cohorts in question is summarised in Table 1. In 1996-7 and
1997-8 the average A level points score of those students coming
in through the A levels route was slightly below that in 1995-6,
(column 3). The proportion of entrants with A level economics was
notably lower in the latter two years, (column 4). At the end of the first
year, students without A level economics had a lower pass rate,
and scored on average some 6-11% less, than their contemporaries with A
level economics, (columns 5 - 8). This is a similar deficiency to one that was
noted for an earlier period (Gage and Bird, 1995). In 1996-7, when the classes
for non A level economics entrants were formally structured around
WinEcon, however, the pass rate for this group was higher than in both the
years when non A level economics students received traditional
tutoring, (column 8). This difference is significant when 1996-7 is compared
with 1997-8 (chi square test, 90% level) and approaches significance at this
level when 1996-7 is compared with 1995-6. This finding is consistent with
results of an individual level study which recorded a very significantly
higher pass rate amongst students directed in their use of WinEcon than
amongst students not so directed. (MacDonald and Shields, 1998).

Table 1: Entry qualifications and average first year economics marks

Entry qualifications

End of First Year Performance

Cohort

n

average A level points

% A level economics

Average Exam %

Those with Those without
A level A level
economics economics

Pass Rate (%)

Those with Those without
A level A level
economics economics

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

1995-6 *

72

21

55

53

46

97

64

1996-7 #

68

20

43

49

43

83

71

1997-8 *

77

20

40

52

41

86

63

* WinEcon optional for all students. Students without A level
economics received weekly classes in economics principles.

# WinEcon optional for students with A level economics. Weekly
classes for students without A level economics structured around
WinEcon.

Despite strong circumstantial evidence, a causal link between the improved
overall performance of non A level economics students and use of
WinEcon in 1996-7 cannot be proved from the data available. It might, however,
be argued that organising classes around the structured WinEcon units, and the
interactive nature of the presentation, engaged students better than the
traditional chalk and talk sessions that it replaced. Student
usage of the WinEcon package and reactions to it were sought to inform this
debate.

Student opinion

An anonymous questionnaire was circulated in the last teaching week of
each academic year. In 1995-6 students were required to complete it in a
compulsory test session, and the high response rate reflects this, (Table 2,
column 2). In both 1996-7 and 1997-8 it was delivered to students during a
lecture, and collected at the end. The attendance rate at the lecture was
typically around 85-90% of the year group, but not everyone submitted a
completed questionnaire. One possibility is that non-users did not bother to
hand it in because they had no views to express about their experiences with
WinEcon. The higher response rate in 1996-7 when WinEcon was required for non
A level economics students, compared to 1997-8 when it was not, is
consistent with this.

Table 2: Usage of WinEcon

Cohort

Response rate

Proportion of respondents with A level economics

Proportion of respondents with A level economics that used WinEcon

Proportion of respondents without A level economics that used WinEcon

Proportion of users spending >9 hours on WinEcon

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

1995-6 *

96%

70%

17%

38%

15%

1996-7 #

70%

60%

27%

94%

75% no A level
0% with A level

1997-8 *

47%

51%

26%

35%

19%

* WinEcon optional for all students. Students without A level
economics received weekly classes in economics principles.

# WinEcon optional for students with A level economics. Weekly
classes for students without A level economics structured around
WinEcon.

In all years a larger proportion of students without A level
economics than with A level economics opted to use the WinEcon
package, particularly in 1996-7 when it was prescribed in all non A
level economics classes, (Table 2, columns 4 and 5). In the absence of
structured classes using WinEcon, between one fifth and one quarter of the
students opted to use it, and the vast majority of users did not choose to
spend more than nine hours working with it, (column 6). This suggests that a
relatively small proportion of students sampled only a small proportion of the
available modules. There was little difference, however, in the amount of time
that respondents reported spending on micro and macro sections.

Table 3: Student views on WinEcon

Cohort

Percentage of users finding WinEcon to be:

not helpful at all

not very helpful

quite helpful

very helpful

1995-6

5%

35%

60%

0%

1996-7

6%

44%

50%

0%

1997-8

4%

48%

48%

0%

Across the three years concerned, just over 50% of users felt WinEcon was quite
helpful, and most of the rest declared that it was not very
helpful. A small minority described it as not helpful at all.
No one described it as very helpful.(Table 3). In an open ended
question about the usefulness of WinEcon as a study resource, comments were
critical in the ratio 3:1, (as is the case in many student course
evaluations), but the adverse remarks were most frequently related to
perceived problems of access, and were misinformed. In line with the major
review of WinEcon (Sloman, 1995, p 1345), students identified a number of
areas and issues not covered by the package. Some of these do not feature
because they do not lend themselves to interactive presentation. Many
respondents, however, recognised that the strength of WinEcon lies in its
ability to offer a novel, additional means to gain an understanding of
analytical concepts that can sometimes seem difficult to grasp from
traditional materials.

Conclusion

While not being a resource that many first year students necessarily go
out of their way to use, it is clear that a small but significant proportion
of students found WinEcon to be an interesting and beneficial complementary
means of studying introductory economics. Furthermore there is some objective
evidence that, when factored into an intensive course, it may have contributed
to improved average performance.